How do YOU "SEE" a photograph?

After about 25 years away from the darkroom and really just making

snapshots I am back in the 'darkness'. While working on some

images, I started tho wonder - What process does each of you go

through to get so many of the wonderfull images I see here and on

other sites? Do you pre-visualize or hope the photo gods are good

to you. What makes you stop and pick a certain location, time of

day, even film, lens, filter. Do you view the scene with one filter

then another or do you just know? I am having trouble getting

images I SEE in my mind on to the paper. More failures (OK maybe

not failures) than hits - those that I would like to hang on the

wall or show to friends and family. I have read (consumed more like

it) and have a pretty good understanding, just not getting there -

any words of wisdom for this group? (Please forgive me, but I plan

to post this in the B&W forum as well). I work in B&W 35mm to 4x5.

 

Thanks in advance for the input.

I think there are several "modes" one can go into, Mike, depending on the circumstances. When one is exploring new territory, the image opportunities are unknown, so "search" mode is handy. Handy, but difficult, because one must be constantly looking both big and small not to miss something interesting. Once something grabs your attention, try to tune into what about it got your attention, and then compose and expose accordingly. Then, there's "pre-planned" mode, where you have something specific in mind. There, you figure out the message that needs to be conveyed, or what story to tell, and then approach the best method to do that in a more studied, scientific way. That often requires figuring out the best time of day to shoot, so some level of drama is present in the result. (The "how can I make this image more interesting and compelling" routine.)

 

Most of my "misses" have been situations where I really wasn't that enthused about the scene in the first place, or didn't pay close enough attention to some detail that would have otherwise made the shot. So, when I finish developing the film it might be, "Boy, that's really a ho-hum image," or "Man, did I ever blow that one!" So now when I go "image hunting", I don't worry too much about not exposing any film. On better-planned excursions, however, I've already thought about what I need to do, and how, and usually "nail it" as a result.

Mike I think you'll get as many different responses as there are photographers. Personally I prefer to cover a lot of ground and when something strikes me I know it, feel it in my bones. Not that it is worthy of publication or gallery praise but it means something to me. Next I would have to say that it is an aquired vision obtained only through practice and making mistakes i.e. distractions in the frame not seen when you took the picture etc. I can heartily recommend Bruce Barnbaums book "The Art of Photography" It is an excellent resource for exploring these issues. Good Luck and keep at it

Photography serves many masters. What is photography to <I>you</I>? Photography can be many things. But to me (and probably to most everyone in this forum), photography is a means of personal expression much as any other art form would be. In order for it to work in that way, I have to <I>respond</I> to a subject. Feeling out that response within myself is a large part of making a successful image. Without knowing how I'm responding to a subject, I cannot hope to be able to convey any sort of feeling about it. There's a lot of introspection involved which doesn't even involve any cameras, lenses or film! On of AA's oft quoted remarks was something to the effect of, "Photograph that which moves you emotionally". If a scene does not move me emotionally, it is unlikely that the act of exposing film will result in much more than a mere documentation of it.<P>

 

Pre-visualization to me is merely understanding how the tools I use will respond to the scene before me. It's not a religion. It only guides me (based on my experience) on how to apply the tools I have.<P>

 

I spend a lot of time <I>looking</I>. And that means without camera in tow. I look at those elements which would make up a photograph were I to take one. I try to examine how I feel and how I respond to a particular subject. And I try to isolate as much as I can just what it is about a subject that makes me feel the way I do. It's a good exercise and doesn't involve any film cost whatsoever.<P>

 

I also look at other people's work as much as possible. Books, shows, galleries and yes, the internet. Heck, I look at images in magazines and calendars to see what I <I>don't</I> like!<P>

 

I have certainly not perfected my approach. But that's what I go through on a daily basis, since you asked. By the way, I will say that my images which are most satisfying came to me in a flash of inspiration - just like a great idea or a great musical line or seeing your way to understanding an abstract concept. It does happen occasionally. What I try most to do is to prepare my mind to be able to accept and make the most of that inspiration when it does occur.<P>

 

By the way, I'll second the recommendation to take a look at Bruce Barnbaum's <I>The Art of Photography</I>. He has a lot of good things to say.<P>

 

Regards,

I figure that if I get 10 keepers in a year, that's a pretty good year. That's out of 200-400 shots.

 

For me the main ingredient is to just spend a lot of time out there photographing. The more time I spend, the more likely it is that something good will happen.

 

In my experience, a successful image is something that happens...to me, and then by me. The pictures find me; I don't find them. The picture gets my attention first, then if I concentrate and listen to what it's trying to say, it shows me the camera position, lens length, etc.

 

While I do use the zone system and visualize the print, I have no problem with using printing controls to take the image where it really wants to go.

The comments already posted all provide very good information. One practical thing

that I do is to restrict myself to one format, one lens, and one film only, until I learn

to see the way that lens does with that particular aspect ratio (6 x 9, 4 x 5, 5 x 7,

etc.). Over time this makes previsualization much easier (and intuitive) for me. I am

kind of a minimalist anyway. It is too easy for me to be distracted by the gear.

Go have fun with Betty Edwards' "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain." It will teach you to shift your attention to the right, or more creative side of your brain and less to the left, more verbal side. Once there, the pictures seem to come easier as long as I keep the "I" out of the way. As soon as I think "I'm about to make a good picture" the magic is gone and it's bound to be a bad one.

 

I also think that seeing only improves with practice. Make a photograph every day, even if it's only one, even if it's "only" 35mm. Or better, get an old Polaroid Land camera and make one, and only one Polaroid image a day, but make it count (would make an interesting show after a year -- successes and failures both). Keep the creative gears lubricated and loose.

 

I agree that 10 keepers a year is a strong year, and 200-400 large format negatives is about right to get those 10. Be hard on yourself when you edit those proofs. I find I need to let proof sheets "ferment" for at least a month. Good pictures convert themselves to mediocre ones over time, and why waste precious time printing mediocrity? Use that time to make negatives 400 to 600 instead, and go for 15 keepers!

In your mind's eye, can you see the Mona Lisa? Can you see Michaelangelo's David? What

about one of Ansel Adam's shots of Halfdome, or the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima?

 

Seeing or previsualization is the skill of being able to do what you just did now, BEFORE

you take the picture. It can be learned through practicing and lots and lots of mistakes.

 

In my opinion, previsualization presupposes that you have the talent, skills, and

experience to bring a look to realization. When we try and try and fail, then try again and

learn how to achieve a certain look, we are closer to becoming previsualizers.

 

It is said that Ansel Adams was already deciding on what kind of frame and matting to use

as he was taking his shot. This is because he probably had several thousands of failures

at all the different parts of picture taking (exposure, development, printing and toning)

and had personally overcome this through experience.

 

For me personally, what I have learned is this. I can previsualize quite well what my

images will look like when I am shooting something I have had experience shooting

before. If I am working with a new camera, new film, new lab or strange conditions, it gets

a lot harder.

 

Mike, you will become a better "see-er" as you pick up your old hobby again.

The attitude of "carpet-bombing" targets in the hopes that one out of 100, will turn out good...sort of rubs me the wrong way. The last thing I want to say, when somebody asks me how I achieved a particular image, is that I shot 20-rolls at random and "what do you know...in the middle of 500 failures, I accidently shot this good one". But I guess that's the difference between LF people and the others.

Regarding "carpet-bombing", I might in a way be guilty as charged, before stepping up from 35mm to larger formats. To my defense, I used my camera as a scouting tool as well.

 

With large format landscape photography I use a digicam as scouting tool - when I find an interesting scene while scouting I shoot lots of different angles with the digicam, even if the light is totally wrong. Later I review the scouting images to look for potential compositions. I also save all my digicam scouting shots for later years. For example, This year I spent a month on Gotland, shot around a thousand digicam shots. These will help me for planning the next visit, perhaps at a different time of year.

"Seeing or previsualization is the skill of being able to do what you just did

now, BEFORE

you take the picture. It can be learned through practicing and lots and lots

of mistakes."

 

So if that's pre-visualisation then at what stage do you actually get around to "visualising" it...

 

Pre-visualisation is just a load of bunkum thought up by the zone geeks to try an mystify what they are doing.

 

It's like saying - "hey I'm just thinking of eating a marmite sandwich - but no, waith, first I'm going to pre-think eating it"!

 

You don't pre-visualise something - you visualise it.

Ho! Kevin...that response is among the funniest I think I have ever seen on Photonet...exactly what many of us have many times thought.

I think that the kind of photography that is interesting consists of an

investigation of something. Not that I am advocating a purely documentary

approach, but I do believe that the best photography deals in a fresh way with

the physical world (which is all photography can do.) I was just looking at a

book that arrived in the mail last week -- Lee Friedlander's Stems. Just

photographs of flowers and stems and vases made when the photographer

was having terrible knee problems and was facing the prospect of being able

only to do still lives. It's a crazy book -- the stems, long and bulkous, inflected

by the imperfect optics of the vases, are erotic and funny and magical. You

think of Kertesz''s Melancholy Tulip and Sudek's calm closeups, but this is all

Lee Friedlander -- an ordinary, everyday things transformed by being worked

at. Much of what I see on these forums are photographs of other

photographs, or people slavishly following rules. The real stuff is about the

world. You can't "see" a photograph until you have established a line of

investigation of your own. Then one image will affect another. You will be

going somewhere. Hope that makes some sense.

Mike,

 

I am twenty four, and have been shooting since I was thirteen

years old. I have gone through several stages in my now

"career"- everything from trying to be David Bailey when I was an

sixteen, to trying to be Jim Marshall when I was eighteen.

 

I discovered the view camera when I was twenty, and found out

its approach works for me (not the arty excuse for using it...it just

you know; works) and one day I woke up and realized I was

architectural photographer.

 

I now have over 750 published architecture images, and my

approach ALL through these years and now, is to let the subject

be itself and capture the image that way.

 

Of course, technique and knowledge of photographic history

helps one capture said image. I used to talk alot of crap about

"not viewing others photographs, so as not to taint my "style" ",

but than realized that theory was a lot of; crap.

 

I have been going through a period now, of NO work- some of it

is my fault and some of it is the economys fault, and this in turn

has brought my output down. I have been thinking about a

project that will involve my street and its people, and yes I have

been "visualizing" to an extent- because I am fimiliar with this

place. I have the luxury of knowing both the locale and its light,

and its inhabitants, and what I can get out of them.

 

On a professional job, I have two options.

 

1.When you have lots of time, and a great budget- you can visit

the site several times, check the light, angles, etc. You can take

"document" shots with a 35mm/Polaroid/Digital camera, and

plan everything to the nth degree. This is sometimes the

preferred way to work.

 

2.When you have no time, no budget- you go in cold and you

make choices right there and then on the spot. Preparation, is

carrying enough "stuff" with you in order to meet any logistical

and lighting challange you might come up against, and in my

opinion THE TRUE test of the professional- to get a beautiful

shot.

 

what do I like??? Both. #1 is easier, and usually results in a

better picture, but #2 is the challange and FORCES you to get

those creative juices flowing. Having lots of limitations makes

you work harder and better sometimes, and I feel is a wonderful

learning tool.

 

Most of my favorite personal pictures over the years, were shot

under scenerio #2, and a lot of the times scenerio #1 gets

thrown out the window due to forces beyond your control and

turns into scenerio #2.

 

In my experiece, you may be a little hard on yourself. I know,

cause I do the same thing. Just keep working, looking, and

realizing what you do like, and more importantly what you don't

like.

 

Take the time to view PRINTED photos, not photos in a book or

website. Also, take the time to realize what gets you going and

what doesn't get you going. Go through your prints, and note

what it is you aren't "getting" that you "saw" in your head. If you

have the chance, befriend other "creative" people (not neccasarly

photographers- I notice with my photo buddies we sometimes

get into to many "who has a bigger phallus" like criticisms of

each others work.) and have them look and your work, and give

you feedback- it goes a long way. As much as I will probably get

flamed- photographers are sometimes the worst people to show

your work to!!!

 

Ramblinglike, I know........

Different modes sounds like a good explanation.

 

I'm still a beginner, so I have a lot of experience to gain.

 

At times, especially with 35mm, I just shoot with a rough idea of what I want.

 

Every once in a while, I'll see a scene and blink my eyes and be able to see (in my mind's eye) exactly how the print will look. Values, composition, (unnoticed) unwanted image elements, etc.